Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXIV, Africa

92. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Tobruk, Libya, August 30, 1967.

PARTICIPANTS

• His Majesty King Idris al-Senussi, King of Libya
• The Honorable David D. Newsom, American Ambassador
• Roscoe S. Suddarth (Interpreter), Political Officer

SUBJECTS

• 1. Royal Trip to Turkey
• 2. The Khartoum Conference and Middle East Situation
• 3. King Husayn’s Visit
• 4. Wheelus Base Negotiations
• 5. U.S. and U.K. Commitments to Libyan Defense
• 6. Strengthening Libyan Internal Security

1. Royal Trip to Turkey. The King and Queen received the Ambassador and Mrs. Newsom and family in the living room of the Royal Palace of Bab Zaytun at Tobruk. After several minutes of pleasantries the King revealed that he and the Queen would be leaving by ship from Tobruk Saturday, September 2 on a five-week trip to Turkey. He said he was tired, partly from work, and wished to take the mineral baths at Bursa, Turkey. He would have to wait until the Crown Prince returned from the Arab Heads of State Conference in Khartoum on Friday, September 1, since both the King and the Crown Prince were not, under the constitution, to be out of the country at the same time. The King would be accompanied by the Queen, Fathi Khoja, Master of Royal Ceremonies, and Miss Hind Ayoubi. The King said he had visited Turkey on an official visit in 1957 but that this visit would be strictly personal. The Ambassador mentioned that the American Ambassador to Turkey, Ambassador Hart, was formerly Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and spoke Arabic. The King said he would welcome meeting Ambassador Hart and expected to be seeing a lot of the Libyan Ambassador to Turkey during his vacation.

(At this point the Queen and Mrs. Newsom left the room.)

2. The Khartoum Conference and the Middle East Situation. The Ambassador asked the King his forecast of the outcome of the Khartoum Conference. The King explained that he expected the conference to proceed in an orderly fashion, with the opening session, three days of secret meetings and a close. He did not expect it to produce any agreement among the Arab states. Algeria and Syria were radical states opposed to recognizing the realities of the Israeli situation, the UAR had lost a great deal of leadership due to its military collapse, and the rest of the Arab states would be generally following along behind, anxious not to get too far out of step with the UAR. The Ambassador offered that the USG hoped the radical view of the existence of Israel would not prevail, as it was harmful to the Arabs’ basic interests. King Idris said he thought that Bourguiba had the most realistic view of the situation, by recognizing that Israel, even though its formation as a state was an injustice, could not be ignored. This the Israelis had proven during the June war. And indeed, continuing refusal to admit these realities was hurting the Arab states. In for instance the Arab boycott of America and Britain, Britain was in fact buying oil from Russia, and West Germany was getting oil from Venezuela. The Ambassador interjected that the boycott was however hurting Britain, even though it was hurting the Arab states most of all. The King said that Libya had originally been against instituting the boycott and asserted apologetically that “a lot of untruths have been written about that affair”—which were largely the work of UAR press media and Embassies, which, he mentioned, were regularly distributing money. The King said the Egyptians only had themselves to blame if they lost the war. His Majesty understood that three or four Egyptian military defectors had pin-pointed Egyptian airfields for the Israelis who surprised the Egyptians and bombed their airfields while the Egyptians were “eating beans” (fuul) at nine a.m. on June 5.

King Idris said Israel spends its resources on unifying its efforts while Egypt spends its money on sowing dissension (fitan) in other countries. The Ambassador interjected that the influence of the United States was quite limited with regard to Israel, partly because Israel had defended itself so successfully. King Idris said he realized that “Israelis” around the world were supporting Israel financially as a part of their religious identification with Israel.

King Idris went into a discussion of the Alexandria Summit of 1964 and observed that it had been divided from the start: Faysal was mainly interested in Yemen, Kuwait was paying money to the UAR to keep Nasser quiet, Husayn was interested mainly in money question and the Palestine organization, etc.

King Idris spoke disparagingly of Prime Minister Husayn Maaziq’s handling of the riots in June, saying that he should have thrown a few people into jail immediately and that would have stopped the disturbances.

3. King Husayn’s Visit. The Ambassador asked about the results of King Husayn’s visit with His Majesty. King Idris concentrated his answer on the problem of Jerusalem, which he said was uppermost in King Husayn’s mind. King Idris said that Muslem holy places such as the Aqsa Mosque were in Israeli-held territory, as well as Christian holy places. He mentioned the possibility of arranging international control of Jerusalem in which Israel would be allowed a voice.

King Idris praised King Husayn and said he was providing himself a good diplomat. People who said that Husayn was a coward were unjust to him since he is only looking to further the interests of his country in very difficult circumstances.

4. Wheelus Base Negotiations. The Ambassador then explained that he had requested the audience with His Majesty in order to review the status of the negotiations on Wheelus Air Force Base. King Idris replied that he too was concerned with that subject. In a few words, the Ambassador said that he was satisfied with the negotiations and with the friendly atmosphere in which they were held. He felt that the observer mechanism, as agreed to in the joint communique,² would provide a means of stretching out the negotiations over a long period of time, in accordance with the desires of both His Majesty and the United States Government. (King Idris nodded assent to this statement.) The USG felt that greater contact was needed between the Base and the GOL and was glad to see the appointment of a high-ranking Libyan officer, Brigadier Zantuti, to that position.

King Idris asked if the USG had agreed to the terms of the communique “in all liberty” or whether it had acquiesced under pressure from the Libyan Government. The Ambassador replied that his Government had agreed without coercion, but that it required five hours to come to the agreement on one point and, as a result, Foreign Minister Bishti said he no longer felt it was easy to deal with Californians.

King Idris said he was concerned about the reference to the closing of Wheelus in the event of the recurrence of an emergency in the Middle East and wondered if the USG agreed with that proposition. The Ambassador replied that in the communique the two sides agreed only to consult together regarding the possibility of closing the Base in such an emergency. This bone of contention was the subject of five hours of the negotiations.

King Idris insisted: “Then your Government was not in agreement with the Libyan Government.” Ambassador Newsom replied that both sides recognized the necessity of taking measures to avoid exposing the Base to charges and rumors that it would be used against the interests of the Arabs in such an emergency. They hoped to dispel mistaken notions like that one held by His Majesty’s friend, Khalid al Gargoni, from Tripoli, who apparently believed that 2,000 American and British planes had landed in Israel. King Idris then recalled a story of the American pilot who claimed the U.S. had no need of aircraft from Wheelus to help Israel since it had sufficient aircraft for that purpose on carriers in the Mediterranean.

The Ambassador then explained that after discussion the Libyan delegation had changed some of its language at the Ambassador’s insistence and had agreed to the principle of consultation. King Idris showed great interest in how this procedure would work in practice and appeared satisfied and relieved when the Ambassador said that in such an event the USG would expect that His Majesty’s opinion would be included in any such consultation. King Idris then said assertively, “Let them come to me.”

The Ambassador said there was one further worrisome point: the Libyan delegation had insisted on referring to the “evacuation and liquidation” of Wheelus in the communique. The USG recognized that political conditions had not returned to normal and that the Libyan Government felt obliged to take account of political considerations in the communique. The USG hoped that the GOL would let the matter rest there, for the Ambassador feared that further statements along those lines might lead the Libyan public to expectations which were not in accordance with the desire of either government. The Ambassador was hopeful that this type of statement would not be repeated; and if the negotiating position of the GOL should in the future change from the desired course the Ambassador would like to consult with His Majesty. King Idris agreed that he should do so.

The Ambassador inquired if the King had any thoughts with regard to the return of the Royal Libyan Air Force to Wheelus. King Idris replied that the RLAF had demonstrated its need for a purge (tathiir) during the events of June, which was currently being undertaken. (As an example of Air Force disloyalty, he referred to an incident involving collusion between a Libyan Air Force officer and the Egyptian Embassy.)

In that connection, the Ambassador mentioned that Wheelus would be gradually resuming its pre-June level of operations during the next three months. This was very important to the USG in order to justify the Base’s utility to the American Government from a military point of view. King Idris nodded in agreement.

With regard to the GOL request for modern aircraft, the Ambassador said this had been in abeyance since the events of June because of the situation in Libya and of U.S. Congressional review of the worldwide military assistance program. But, the USG is continuing to give the Libyan request sympathetic consideration.

King Idris replied that he appreciated USG efforts in that direction. The GOL, he said, is making every effort to purge the Air Force and to insure that only “sincere” persons would be flying such aircraft. He had no objection to continuing to pursue the aircraft sales program, but wanted to “go slowly”.

5. U.S. and U.K. Commitments to Libyan Defense. King Idris turned the discussion to the problem of Libyan defense and asked point blank, “What is America prepared to do to defend in case Libya is attacked?” He said that America had important interests in Libya, including substantial petroleum investments and military installations. It knew that Libya was threatened by Egypt on the East and Algeria on the West. Algeria under Ben Bella and Nasser had agreed to divide Libya and then respectively turn towards Morocco and Sudan for further aggrandizement. Nasser had failed in Syria and Yemen but who knew when he would turn on Libya. King Idris noted that the Soviet Union was behind the UAR and Algeria (particularly Boumedienne). He also alluded to the fact that Russia during the post World War II U.N. debate on Libya had insisted that Libya be rid of foreign bases within four months after Independence.

The Ambassador then reviewed the contents of the letter sent by the President of the United States to King Idris,³ which indicated continuing U.S. friendships for Libya and interests in its security. It stated that the USG would consult with the GOL and other friendly governments in the event Libya security was threatened. This referred particularly to Great Britain which was tied to Libya through its Treaty of Friendship, committing Britain to defend Libya in case of external aggression. The letter also mentioned that the continuing existence of military facilities in Libya would help the USG to fulfill any such commitments to defend Libyan security. As His Majesty knew, the USG letter was not more explicit because, for constitutional reasons, the President could not go further in his commitment without consulting Congress. (The King replied in that connection that “the first Ambassador” had explained that the USG was prepared to go even further than the letter had stated in defending Libya.)

King Idris then asked “What joint plans do the British and Americans have for defending Libya against external aggression?” The Ambassador replied that the U.S. and Britain have been allies for a long time and often consulted each other over global problems. Far from being in competition in the Middle East, as many Arabs assert, the U.S. and Britain keep in close touch. As an example, in 1958 when the U.S. went into Lebanon and Britain into Jordan, the operation was highly coordinated. In the case of Libya the two powers keep each other aware of their military capabilities and general military political considerations. Planning was not more specific as both countries recognized that measures would have to be tailored to fit particular circumstances that might vary from time to time.

The Ambassador asked if His Majesty had revealed the contents of the Presidential letter to any of his Prime Ministers. King Idris replied that he had not done so because “ministers come and ministers go”, implying that they probably would not keep the secret. The Ambassador asked if the Prime Ministers might not treat the Base questions somewhat differently if they realized the contents of the letter, which links the U.S. ability to help to the presence of the Base.

6. Strengthening Libya Internal Security. In the U.S. view, an outright military attack on Libya was less likely than difficulties arising from internal subversion. In this connection the Libyan Government particularly needed to strengthen its ability to collect and evaluate information related to internal security. As an example, the Ambassador heard a story that the police in Tripoli had recently followed the movements of a subversive Algerian until he left Tripoli. When asked where he had gone, a police officer said he had gone to Benghazi and admitted that the Tripoli police had not notified the Benghazi authorities of this fact. This illustrated that Tripoli and Benghazi security forces acted almost as though they were in separate countries.

The Ambassador understood that an office of security had existed on the national level in the government of Mahmud Muntassir but that Husayn Maaziq had disbanded it. He felt that the GOL needed such an office to collect and coordinate information on subversive activities in Libya. And the USG for its part would be willing to provide information on, for instance, Soviet and UAR diplomats if the GOL so requested. The King noted those remarks and said that by coincidence he had been discussing the same subject that morning and the GOL is planning to reconstitute that office in the near future. The Ambassador said he hoped the King would not consider his remarks an intrusion into Libyan internal affairs on his part, and King Idris replied that he considered it rather to be “advice from a friend”.

Earlier in the conversation the Ambassador mentioned the GOL request for a variety of security equipment and said that the USG felt the GOL could use technical help in placing such orders. For example, the GOL had recently ordered five helicopters which had proved to be of insufficient range for effectiveness in Libya and which were provided with neither pilots nor mechanics. Accordingly, if the GOL so requested, the USG was ready to provide experts who could advise the GOL on the technical aspects of their security equipment. The USG felt it important that some experts (Americans or British) should be present to give such advice. The King noted these remarks and said that he recognized that Libyans still needed foreign help in the technical field until they could fully train their own people. And it was foolish to allow expensive equipment to be ruined because of mishandling.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL LIBYA–US. Secret. Drafted by Suddarth on September 6. The conversation was held at the Royal Palace (Bab Zaytun). The source text is enclosure 1 of airgram A–61 from Tripoli, September 7. (Ibid.)
2. Telegram 695 from Tripoli, August 17, transmitted the text of the joint communique agreed upon during the second session of the U.S.-Libyan talks on Wheelus on August 17. The communique announced that in preparation for establishing a program for U.S. withdrawal from the base, a Libyan committee would be formed and headquartered at Wheelus in order to undertake an inventory, to observe the activity at the base, and to act as liaison between Libyan and U.S. authorities. (Ibid., DEF 15 LIBYA–US)
3. September 1, 1965. [Footnote in the source text. For the letter, see Document 74.]